Searching for and Cutting Regulations That Are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will give us greater insight into the impact of Federal regulations on the wages of American workers.

We already know from countless studies that the accumulation of regulations increases the cost of goods, which reduces the buying power of families and individuals to purchase the items they need and want. An area that we need to study more, though, is what impact regulations have on the wages of most Americans. Given the negative impacts of regulations on prices, it is reasonable to conclude that regulations could be a major contributing factor to flattening wages, especially-- and I say this clearly--for lower income individuals.

According to the U.S. Census, the median wage in the U.S. is the same today as it was in 2007. That is 8 years of no income gain for families and workers in Michigan and across the country. The University of California's economists have also found that, since 2009, the average income of the top 1 percent grew by 11.2 percent in real terms while the bottom 99 percent saw their incomes decrease by 0.4 percent. During that same time, there have been over $100 billion in new regulatory costs, according to the Mercatus Center.

Many employers I speak to would rather hire more workers or give their current staffs a raise. Instead, they are forced to spend limited resources on making sense of the thousands of pages of new regulations that are coming out of Washington. Employers are spending more on compliance than ever before, leaving little left in their budgets to increase the take-home pay of employees.

Some of my colleagues here in Congress believe that more bureaucratic red tape and mandates from the Federal Government will actually increase wages and reduce inequality. While these regulations may sound good in theory--some of them--the hard truth is that, over time, they limit economic growth and career advancement opportunities. Most alarming is that these negative economic impacts affect lower wage workers the very most--immobilizing them from finding work, from rising in their careers, and from increasing their wages.

Fortunately, the SCRUB Act is an innovative approach; and I commend its sponsor, Representative Jason Smith, for his work.

My amendment, Mr. Chairman, will enhance this important bill by instructing the commission to review the impact of regulation on wages as part of their retrospective review.

I encourage all my colleagues to support my amendment and the bill so we can unleash individuals and industry from regulatory burdens and create an environment where wages and economy can grow for everyone.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns expressed by the ranking member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, my friend from Virginia. I appreciate the fact he sits in on all of our Workforce Protections Subcommittee hearings that I have the privilege of chairing.

We have looked at regulatory changes that the gentleman speaks to. He, as well as the rest of my colleagues on that subcommittee, have heard very clear testimony that while they are based on wonderful desires, we all want safe workplaces, we all want people making better pay, having better benefits, living wages. Yet, all of those come with costs, and, in fact, basically every one of those regulatory ideas would cost jobs and job security. I have seen that very clearly with several of those in the great State of Michigan as they have been implemented.

Mr. Chairman, we should have commonsense, effective regulations that truly punish bad actors, but regulations cannot come at the overwhelming costs we are seeing now with anemic growth and stagnant wages. Sadly, we don't know how much wages have truly been hit by these regulations, which is why my amendment is needed.

I ask for support for this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source